This week, IUM Founder and Chairperson, former Minister of Education, David Namwandi, made a speech at the opening of his university’s Nkurenkuru Campus’ academic year, posing a vital question: how is it that high unemployment in Namibia is not a major issue? We echo his query.

The most recent Namibia Labour Force Survey (NLFS) is from 2016, but its statistics remain relevant to the discussion of rising unemployment in Namibia.

The NLFS report states that as of 2016, over 35 percent of Namibians were without jobs and a stunning 44 percent of the youth were sitting home with no income.

The IUM leader’s question highlights the reality that there has been near silence from the halls of government specifically about unemployment and tangible job creation incentives and programs.

How can it be that there is a lack of well-funded, specific employment programs when more than one third of the potential Namibian workforce is on the streets?

Namwandi noted that other countries go into crisis mode when they have a 5 percent unemployment rate while our government seems nonplussed at 35 percent.

In most countries facing an election year, a government or political party in power, running for re-election with a 35 percent unemployment rate, wouldn’t have a prayer of maintaining power.

Double-digit unemployment is usually a fast way for a ruling party to become an opposition party. In Namibia, however, this will not apply and voters probably will not use high unemployment as a guide to their voting preferences.

In our view, the flood of speeches, rhetoric and photo opportunities around local and national governments making more serviced land available, fulfilling the promise of the mass housing program or even managing a drought emergency, are just words if people do not have jobs to earn an income, to buy and maintain homes and property or buy food to eat when their subsistence farms are failing.

The bottom line ought to be the creation of sustainable, permanent employment for the Namibian people who can earn a living wage and thrive, not just survive.

‘Once Upon A Time’, back in 2011, there was a dream called: Targeted Intervention Program for Employment and Economic Growth (TIPEEG). This fairy tale declared that the Namibian government would borrow N$14 billion in order to create 104,000 jobs over a three-year period.

This program was specifically undertaken to reduce a crisis unemployment rate of 51.2 percent in 2008 (this figure was challenged as it included people working on subsistence farms and students in university as ‘unemployed’).

But, just like the empty promises of fantasy storybook endings where a Prince charming comes riding a white stallion from a shining palace to sweep a would-be princess off her feet and take her away to live happily ever after, TIPEEG also fell flat.

When the program came to an end in 2014, N$11 billion had been spent. Many economists and pundits criticised the program for creating mostly short-term jobs.

Reportedly, the program created 83,000 jobs, of which only 15,829 were permanent. In other words, only 15 percent of the jobs promised were permanent offering employment tenure and increased stability for Namibian households.

And yet, the price tag for that 15 percent success rate of eight years ago still requires financial management that is draining our depressed economic coffers. Arguably, that huge amount spent with little returns, is a part of the reason our financial coffers are empty now.

With the furore about Harambee, NDP 5, the Mass Housing Program, Food Banks, a new Poverty Ministry, and other band aids on poverty in Namibia, talk about job creation via TIPEEG is rare.

All who cheered for TIPEEG in 2011, are very quiet now. Remember some of the same decision makers back then are still in the governance game now. Our current Prime Minister was Minister of Finance; our current Minister of Finance was Deputy Minister of Finance, the current Minister of Mines and Energy was the Minister in the Presidency in charge of National Planning and our current President was Minister of Trade and Industry.

Back in September 2018, Schlettwein said he did not regret TIPEEG, but then went on to denigrate the program by saying it should have created more jobs, and that better returns were expected, but not received.

Understatement of problems, doesn’t help in the search for solutions.

The hide-your-eyes treatment of the results of the TIPEEG program is as if Prince and Princess Charming of storybook fame, got a quickie divorce and people are too embarrassed to discuss them anymore.

The roar of the unemployed cannot be long ignored.

As most government jobs in our bloated civil service are frozen, students expecting employment when their studies are completed are frustrated, the private sector isn’t creating enough jobs to meet the entire need, jobs at non-governmental organizations are disappearing, and nearly every sector is retracting during this economic crisis, what is the employment creation plan?

This question, as Namwandi put it, is unaddressed, and that should not be the case.

We look with interest at the ongoing saga of dictates from the SWAPO leadership articulated by Secretary General Sophia Shaningwa, being challenged by officials on local councils and regional authorities.

At nearly 30 years as a free country, it may be time for Namibia to consider a change in how leaders are selected. Local people should ‘own’ their decision-making system via direct elections at the ballot box.

This internal SWAPO political hiccup began late last year as Shaningwa recalled all SWAPO councillors at Oshakati Town Council for defying her directives.

At the same time, the ruling party SG directed the party regional coordinator for Otjozondjupa to install targeted individuals as Okahandja local office bearers, displacing existing office holders.

The Walvis Bay Municipality postponed the swearing in of office bearers because SWAPO officials in the district did not agree with the directive from Shaningwa about who should be their mayor.

In Rundu, SWAPO has now recalled three of its councillors for not following party orders about who should hold office.

There were court cases initiated against the party directives in some instances. This public relations nightmare for the ruling party is in full bloom.

This top-down, “do this or else” system does not take into account the need for effective service to the people and hinders democratic development in Namibia.

Imposing discipline becomes the focus of the party’s energy and efforts, instead of addressing the issues that affect people’s lives.

We have further concerns about any party that espouses the, “we are democratic’ rhetoric, and yet, takes actions that appear to the contrary.

Prior to last year’s SWAPO party congress where elections for office were held, President Hage Geingob presented his declaration in support of his slate of candidates saying that these four candidates were, “the only people he could work with.”

Regardless of support by fellow party members, regardless of their capacities and abilities, the four were to be voted into power because they were the only people Geingob would work with. Even if they were not the best for the party or the country, that didn’t matter.

Is that what is going on now when party members serving as local officials are being recalled or demoted? Is a statement being made that those who are being inserted on regional councils and city councils or as mayors are, “the only ones the party leadership will work with?”

Where then does the requirement to diligently and effectively serve the people and listen to their concerns fit in?

Elections are coming and local leaders are needed to campaign for the party. What will those former local party officials that have been side-lined (and their constituents) say and do during the campaign period?

They’ve been benched at a time when the party faithful are needed to garner a larger campaign victory than in previous years, particularly in a time of drought and economic depression.

We are uncertain if consultations with the various local leaders affected by decisions taken at party headquarters, have taken place. If respectful discussions did not take place in advance of the public announcement of the final decisions, then this is a faux pas that can engender long-lasting animosity.

Even those who remain in local office can feel insecure in their positions (even though they appear to fall in line) and may not be as willing to implement dictates with vigour.

Following a mandate to the letter to keep your job is one thing, following it because you believe in it and support the spirit AND the letter of its requirements, is something else.

In the top-down system, those who obtain posts may not be the most qualified or talented in management, financial oversight, project implementation or leadership/people skills.

There are officials appointed or on party lists with questionable literacy and comprehension levels who are asked to read and evaluate significant reports, budgets and financial statements in order to make major decisions.

Lacking skills, they remain silent much of the time in meetings, usually voting, but not understanding what is before them.

Direct elections of local authorities will sort out who is capable and who is not. Being appointed to a top governance job is easy and can be handled by limited leaders – they need only meet the expectations of the appointing authority.

Representing the people who make a judgement each election cycle is much harder. Diligence and attentiveness to the electorate (not only the party) becomes the priority.

Attending local events and being in the districts to meet with the people face-to-face will become a daily job for any leader who wishes to be re-elected.

Even with direct local elections there would be a major role for political parties. Parties set the platforms and identify the key issues.

Parties would be empowered to sort internal squabbles and arbitrate amongst its members who hold leadership positions locally. They would have political incentives and patronage, ‘whips’ and purse strings to capture their members’ loyalty.

Political parties would have to work harder to be in agreement with their members who are elected officials.

While parties will resist any rule change that is perceived to diminish their reach, we argue that party influence over local matters would increase as its members are elected with a mandate from the cross-party majority of the voters in a particular local area.

More people, party members or not, would perceive their needs as being served by the party of the winning candidate as he/she addresses their needs. This could strengthen the reach of the party and win new members.

People who may not ever vote because they don’t believe the party system cares about their needs, might now vote because they see an individual who they know, running for office and fighting in support of their local concerns.

Consider the rural Namibians who are living with elephants that destroy their crops and lions that kill their cattle or have broken sewerage pipes that sit for months unattended or have no cell phone or internet coverage.

These citizens have local issues as their top priority. Arguably, they have a right to have officials that live amongst them, who know their problems and can use the system to find solutions.

The current democratic disconnect in the top-down system for local authorities, begs for change.

As 2019 begins, we are faced yet again with the never-ending spectre of the housing and land crisis.

The status quo of housing backlogs, urban migration, unused yet completed mass housing, municipal failures to service the land, and government paralysis over the matter has become ‘normal’ in Namibia.

The reality faced by tens of thousands of Namibians who work for basic wages at low skilled or manual labour jobs, is that decent, affordable, low-cost housing is unavailable. Shacks are now the low cost housing standard in Namibia.

Where do the vendors selling kapana, tourist souvenirs or fruits and vegetables live? Can we continue at nearly 30 years of independence to accept that shacks are the only housing option for the working poor? The time for making speeches about this problem has been over for decades; well-funded projects, actual home construction and servicing of land at a fast pace is needed now.

People who live in the apartheid era tribally segregated houses now use their backyards to provide shacks for rent or for a place for their adult children to live. Housing is so unaffordable and unavailable, that adult children stay at home and live in shacks behind the places where they were born.

Where then, do those coming into towns from the villages and rural farms stay? The idea of staying for free with distant relatives in town is gone with the times. Those spaces no longer exist and if they do, the rental rates charged for slum shacks is out of reach for the unemployed or unskilled labourers.

Various towns and villages around the country are experiencing another spate of land grabbing and shack demolitions. The frustrations of those in need of housing are mounting. There is a desperate couple renting a space in Windhoek for their bed in the open in someone’s backyard, using a tarp to cover them when it rains.

There are people whose names have been on lists for municipal plots for nearly a decade with no results. Do the authorities think that citizens have no idea of what an empty promise is? Why put so much effort in placating people with useless waiting lists for land and threatening them with bulldozers. Use that same energy for taking consistent, decisive action to provide housing and land.

People are being thrown off of seized, un-serviced land with alacrity with no alternatives offered. Throw them off to go where? Destroy their shacks to what end? Viable alternatives should emerge before demolitions.

Are those who participate in grabbing land, criminals? Are they disloyal to this country? We think not. They are desperate people driven to the brink of sanity because they do not have a safe, decent place to call home and they are tired of enduring this situation year after year.

When the Hep E breakouts were in full swing, the president while visiting an affected area, made a statement telling people who needed to defecate to do so away from homes and somewhere ‘else.’ We see his comments as a concession to the reality that people need toilets and that there is nothing readily available in many areas to cater to their basic human needs. So rather than a laughable declaration that people should not defecate, he made a plea to do so in other places.

Having a place to live is also an unavoidable human bodily function. There is no option; everyone needs a place to live. Where then shall people who have little, go to find a home? There is no place to live out of sight or behind a tree.

We do not support grabbing land and we remain against anything that speaks of chaos and selfishness (who decides which person has a claim to a piece of state land versus anyone else). But, at the same time, we cannot condemn people who have tried to do the right thing and put their names on forgotten waiting lists over the years, who go out every day and work to earn pennies for their bread and yet, they remain unserved and marginalized. What are their legal options to secure housing?

We look at housing unoccupied in Walvis Bay and other areas because they remain too expensive for the working poor. How would a lady selling fat cakes and kapana at a construction site ever obtain bank financing to buy such a home at any ‘low-cost’ price? Private sector construction partners are promised the right to make a decent profit and recoup the costs of building each house. How can those living in shacks pay such market prices?

Was the purpose of state-funded housing programmes primarily to provide lower cost homes for those who could obtain bank financing and bonds? Or, was there an intention to primarily build government-owned free/subsidized housing blocks for those with nothing, disbursed according to a fair system yet to be decided?

We urge the government to tell the truth to the nation, that all who want houses and land will never receive them; expectations must be lowered. Then, they must set a reasonable time line for housing availability and serviced plots. The National Housing Enterprise (NHE) must receive maximum funding (and well-policed performance targets), government must commit to slowing down urban migration by investing in industries that provide jobs and services in rural areas, and move faster on low cost or subsidized housing.

This is an election year when promises tend to be bandied about even more. Housing solutions are needed, not speeches. To slow down the never-ending housing crisis, the country needs leadership to encourage the people, efficient use of available resources and community ownership of the process.

If nothing moves beyond where we are now, we could reprint this exact editorial in January, 2020 and it would still be applicable. How long will people continue to wait?

If a full blown economic depression in Namibia is not enough to make the president curtail foreign travel that does not specifically bring back short-term investment or donor assistance, we are at a loss to know what will.

We juxtaposed the frantic photos of 2,000-3,000 prospective employees who turned up in the rain and mud at the Nehale IyaMpingana Railway Station in the North in hopes of securing one of only 40 reported job openings at TransNamib, with the photos of our well-dressed president on a brightly lit, modern stage smiling in a one-on-one meeting with a government official at the Abu Dhabi Sustainability Week Conference (ADSW) this past weekend. The comparison raises disturbing issues.

President Hage Geingob and his delegation visited Abu Dhabi, the capital of United Arab Emirates (UAE) last week. For many who aren’t aware, the Abu Dhabi Sustainability Week brings together policy makers, industry specialists, technology pioneers and the next generation of sustainability leaders to share knowledge and strategies.

The website for the event boasted that more than US$15 billion worth of projects were announced during the week. We wonder what part of that magnificent investment is headed towards Namibia.

Will the president be announcing a UAE funded development programme in any sector? Is there even an emergency grant from the über-rich UAE government for drought relief, upcoming food aid (there has been insufficient rain in the north and people have not cultivated), hospitals and maternity wards, HIV/AIDS programmes, schools, bursaries… or anything?

To clarify, we are not opposed to our head of state or ministers travelling to represent this country where there is a direct give-back to the nation in terms of investment promotion, immediate direct investment, security issues, tourism, business contracts, major sporting events that include Namibia, trade and overall foreign relations (such as the SADC double troika summit, where Namibia serves as the Chairman).

Certainly, it is the role of the executive to present this country to the world and nurture relations beneficial to the nation. But, we are in an extraordinary and unplanned crisis here at home.

Is it reasonable to take non-vital overseas side trips when there is no money for the basics of what the people need? Just the image and perception of such a trip does not speak well of a president in tune with the suffering of his constituents.

While this country is not on fire like Zimbabwe which is miserably fumbling its petrol crisis, we have our defence forces on the streets for crime control because we have no budget to hire and equip enough police officers.

We have scores of NUST students unable to register as huge 2019 deposits are needed, largely because NSFAF is struggling to pay on time for each student.

The malls have more empty shop space, households are increasing their debt just to buy food and retrenchments are happening everywhere.

Banks are experiencing cash liquidity challenges, water, electricity and the internet are becoming unaffordable, and fuel prices are on their way up again.

Recent reports disclosed that even the Oshakati mortuary is underfunded and the staff working with dead bodies every single day are on the verge of a walk-out due to antiquated facilities, unhygienic conditions and gross underpay.

People of this country at all levels are nervous, insecure and afraid of losing what they have worked a lifetime to build.

Facing this reality, the bar for decision-making on which state-funded trips to take and how long to stay abroad, must be raised.

Unless this recent travel to Abu Dhabi was fully sponsored by the UAE, or there are secret benefits to the nation yet to be revealed, this trip should have been avoided.

While our head of state likes to be treated in an exclusive presidential manner when he travels and enjoys the luxurious reception an oil-rich Gulf State can offer visiting dignitaries, was this the time for such a jaunt?

There are needs and wants to be managed when money is tight. We believe this trip was a ‘want.’

The ADSW is an annual conference and unless business ground was laid in well in advance in order to set up deals that the president would sign once there, what is the point?

This Abu Dhabi junket has been justified as an opportunity to have discussions with UAE officials. We wonder: what would a multi-billionaire UAE oil sheik have to ‘discuss’ with the president of a indebted, non-oil producing African country whose entire GDP likely equals that sheik’s personal cars, travel and household budget?

The UAE head of state was probably wearing a watch that costs as much as one of our presidential cars. What commodities can we offer that the UAE does not already purchase anywhere it chooses and in the quantities and varieties that it can easily afford?

Such a discussion was not a meeting of equals and therefore we fail to understand what ‘discussions’ that will ease our economic depression could be held?

If Geingob was prepared to beg for cash, we could all swallow our pride and understand the real reason for the trip. Desperate times call for desperate measures.

We urge the president to look hard at photos of hard-faced young men storming TransNamib facilities desperate for manual labour jobs and think seriously about the perceptions raised by the images of his luxurious, hard-currency S&T filled, executive travel.

We all have to give up things to help ease Namibia out of this depression, non-essential, cosy presidential visits must be one of those sacrifices.

There is no doubt that many are happy to see 2018 end. Businesses, households and government have all struggled financially over the past 12 months and can only hope that 2019 won’t be worse.

While we wish everyone a happy holiday, we caution all to take steps to prepare for a stark 2019.

The International Monetary Fund and our own local financial analysts have given their diagnosis on the patient (i.e., the Namibian economy) and declared that we are still in the ICU with no sure cure in sight.

In fact, more pain is due down the line if we are committed to decreasing the national debt, re-charging the economy, and re-building national spirits.

At the same time, we all need to pray that international prices and demand for our commodities sky-rocket, oil prices fall and the Rand to US dollar exchange rate declines. Facing these realities, we should indeed celebrate the holidays, while preparing for a brutal New Year.

In this upcoming election year, with the ruling party not even willing to discuss the blatantly evident reality that there IS disunity and frustration in its ranks, the odds that anything draconian will be done to salvage the economy are low.

We could only shake our heads in shame as we watched SWAPO Secretary-General, Sophia Shaningwa, (with the backing of the SWAPO leadership) thrashing about like a bull in a china shop telling local and regional councils who would be their leaders and who would not.

Has anyone not told the SG that top down dictatorial edicts are for 1970 and not for 2018? The subsequent defiance and expectedly negative blow-back from some of those regional and municipal party leaders concerned is indicative of a rank-and-file that wants to be consulted, included and respected not dominated and slapped down.

Many actions taken in 2018 show that key decision-makers are disconnected from the people they lead. What makes things worse, is that regardless of how bad things get in 2019, most of those who go to the polls in the New Year, will vote SWAPO again.

This guaranteed victory is not just because of an uninformed electorate, tribal affinities, the selfishness of those benefitting from the status quo or those who are nostalgic about the Independence Struggle. There are other considerations that will be the cause of the inevitable SWAPO win at the polls in 2019.

What are the options for those who believe this country needs more capable, energetic and effective leaders? People fall back into their comfort zones and feel, ‘better the devil you know…’ close their eyes and cast their votes.

This criticism is also levelled at those who vote for tribal parties or have an emotional axe to grind with the ruling party to the extent that they form useless splinter parties that can do nothing to help the country in this dire financial time.

The opposition is weak, divided, and underfunded. If they are not dragging their representatives into court, resigning and joining other parties or fighting their own leaders, they are screaming only about what is wrong in Namibia.

Of that group, only the well-spoken McHenry Venaani on behalf of the PDM has attempted to articulate new programmes and ideas that could be implemented to make changes.

While we predict a SWAPO win in 2019, the margin of that victory could be the lowest in history. This may be the harbinger for future change. With the stalwart ‘names’ of liberation era leaders thinning, greying and retiring, we worry that a new generation of capable, experienced, competent leaders will have been held back too long to be able to step and clean up the social, financial and political mess left behind.

Just as the country must get its act together to heal the economy, households must do so too.

The holiday season must be the time to rest and push some of the worries aside. Families must reunite, re-energise and re-establish bonds. Social ills of alcoholism, drug abuse, poor school performance and domestic abuse on all levels, take root in family and community discord. The holidays can be a time to heal those wounds.

Following the advice of financial managers around the country, we also urge people to spend money this holiday season with common sense. Now is not the time to run up credit card bills that you may not have the money to settle later on.

A significant percentage of those out there now planning a nice Christmas won’t have jobs (or the same job) in 2019 and might run into trouble paying bills. Be smart: toast 2019 with beer instead of champagne.

Have a safe holiday and don’t drive like a demon on the roads as you head home. Those driving luxury cars with high speed capacities purchased on credit can easily be buried in them. ARRIVE ALIVE must be the mantra.

We close 2019 with these words of criticism and caution, but also with words of optimism.

The country that ended apartheid and colonialism, is the same country with the spirit, power and commitment to end poverty, hopelessness and financial fear. The rough 2019 will come, but if we are realistic and dedicated to a strong Namibia, we can do what is necessary to help weather the storm.

We are vexed by an end-of-year cabinet meeting that uses descriptive adjectives like “ethical” and “integrity” attached to the activities and performance outcomes of some cabinet members in this recession-battered year of 2018. We find some words used in the president’s statement to be off the mark.

We are not suggesting that the president should have publicly lambasted his ministers for under-performance, tainted deals and disappointing results that have come to light over the last 12 months. We are suggesting that more muted praise would indicate that the president and cabinet are aware of their shortcomings but have re-committed to a changed course in 2019.

Where is the integrity in a cabinet that secretly approved a highly questionable land deal in favour of a Russian billionaire with one hand, while planning a land conference to address the number one concern of the Namibian people (land ownership), with the other?

We know that members of cabinet sitting quietly with folded hands while receiving praises from the president know the now questioned value of that Russian land deal. They know for a fact if that deal’s value is N$43 million or N$207 million. Is it their integrity and sense of ethics that keeps them and the president silent on this point of fact?

We recall how difficult it was this year for cabinet and the president to submit a complete, unedited list of who has received resettlement farms since the inception of the program. Is it their integrity and sense of ethics that kept this list under wraps for so long?

This year during a heavy recession and budget cuts, the Ministry of Defence spent tens of millions to purchase a game lodge and hunting farm for specious reasons. That same ministry sent soldiers on unpaid leave due to a lack of funds. The public incredulity over this contradictory use of state funds has gone unaddressed. Even the president announced that he would query those purchases and yet, he did not revert back to the public. Is this integrity-filled, professional and ethical cabinet behaviour?

As another example, two major decisions made by Minister John Mutorwa were overturned by the courts. His controversial appointment of a Meatco Board while the line minister of that SOE was recently struck down as illegal. In addition, his hasty dismissal of the Namibia Airports Company (NAC) board deputy chair as the line minister for this SOE was also successfully challenged.

What message does this send when ministers make unilateral decisions that blow-up in their faces? Is it a question of ethics and integrity or competence and poor homework? Either way, it does not speak well of informed leadership.

Over the past 12 months, when our politicians withhold necessary information, promise the sky but deliver only a cloud, and appear to tolerate corruption, these actions are in full view of the people. Actions speak louder than words.

We take note of a group of landless people preparing to march on the land now owned by the Russian billionaire near Dordabis. They are targeting this land owner because they believe that something ‘shady’ is going on; they don’t trust that government has been above board on how huge swaths of Namibian land are sold to foreigners, at undisclosed prices while sons and daughters of the soil remain landless.

We wonder how those marchers in Dordabis would respond if that exact same end-of-year speech for cabinet were presented to them.

Under the punishing economic recession and devastating budget cuts of 2018, when cabinet members make pledges and promises about what is ‘going to’ happen, people find it hard to believe them. There are trust issues in Namibia, where our people wait to see what leaders do, paying less regard to what they say.

We recall quite clearly that in 2018, five cabinet members, Obeth Kandjoze, Alpheus !Naruseb, Bernhard Esau, Tjekero Tweya and Sacky Shangala were called in to the president’s office to answer questions about accusations of corruption in their ministries over previous years.

In fact, this year’s only cabinet reshuffle for three of these ministers was specifically done (according to president Geingob’s own statements) due to allegations of corruption and mismanagement in their previous portfolios.

With one sitting minister in court this year facing charges over actions taken in the past, we suggest that the president’s speech writers be a bit more tactical in their word choices when describing ministerial performances.

Perhaps such speeches should rather include adjectives that nicely describe ministers as primarily interested in their own political self-preservation or use words that accurately state how fearful they are of disagreeing with the president or how many of them remain silent even though they have questions and doubts.

In addition, we question why presidential speech writers included that there were 19 meetings, 272 agenda items or 260 decisions made by Cabinet. Where is the relevance of a litany of statistics collected from sign-in sheets?

The people struggling with poverty, insecurity about their jobs or rising crime, are more concerned about how many agenda items discussed resulted in actual budget savings, job creation programs or more affordable housing.

Let us not pretend - cabinet meetings are routinely held where most agenda items include routine issues such as approvals of appointments for SOE boards and executives; agreements about the executive branch travel arrangements; the approval of hosting/attending international summits; or invitations for official state visits.

Reciting statistics about hundreds of cabinet decisions as if that means the work of battling the recession is being spearheaded by that apex executive body, are misleading.

A year-end meeting that was more balanced in reviewing government successes and shortfalls was more in order (and truthful).

End-of-year cabinet meetings should offer targeted praise where it has been earned as well as a message of hope to the recession-weary public, but the adjectives used must reflect the reality of the actual outcomes.

The decision by Rio Tinto to sell its 68 percent stake in Rössing Uranium to China National Uranium Corporation (CNUC) is yet another example of how Namibian governments over the years,

have not planned this nation’s affairs for the bigger picture based on long-term analysis of what is to our advantage, but rather tends to react to situations when crises arrive.

All too often, we don’t plan, research and act in the best interest of Namibia – we react like a kudu caught on the road in the headlights of an oncoming car.

It is this pattern of making major decisions enthralled with short-term gains that has caused the sale of the 65,000 hectare Erindi Private Game Reserve to South Africans, a total of 45,000 hectares to Russians, cattle farms leased or sold to the Chinese, allegations of Namdia selling diamonds below market value, deforestation of timber in the Rundu area.

You can add the uncontrolled sand mining all over the North, the re-emerging spectre attempts to mine phosphates, clamours for increased allowable catches from at-risk fish stocks, and other leakages of valuable and finite Namibian natural resources.

We believe such ‘sales’ and ‘deals’ were done without long-term considerations as a make-or-break part of the negotiations to at least project the scenario of potential impacts of changes in world economies, demand/supply and available markets that may disadvantage this country later on.

We go back further recalling this pattern of short-term thinking when it comes to disposing irreplaceable and treasured national resources and look at how the (then) Areva Desalination Plant deal was managed such that years later, government struggles to buy at top dollar what should have been a strategic resource with a first buyer or emergency nationalisation option at the outset. Water is arguably Namibia’s most valuable, strategic commodity.

This level of short-term thinking, reacting to situations rather than pro-actively anticipating and managing natural assets, is wasteful of opportunities and keeps the country on a fire-sale footing for its assets.

Worse, selling out cheaply and without due consideration for changes that could go against Namibia’s interests over the long-term is doing a grave disservice to the nation that we should be handing over in good order to our children and their children.

The recent furore over the anticipated sale of Rössing’s shares to CNUC cannot be viewed in isolation. China General Nuclear Power Corporation (CGNPC) and the China/Africa Development Fund already hold 90 percent of the shares in Husab Mine (arguably the largest uranium mine in the world) and Chinese companies already own 25 percent shares in Langer Heinrich Uranium Mine.

There should be little shock that the Chinese are moving to control all of Namibia’s uranium – they’ve been offered the key to the uranium in the soil of the Land of the Brave, they’ve paid what is asked and have bought the right to use the key.

China has positioned itself to be in the driver’s seat for global control over various mineral resources it has deemed to be vital to its national interests, such as uranium. There is nothing wrong with this; each nation should proceed with purchases, trade deals, and programmes that are in its best interest.

Equally, we believe that Namibia must also do this. However, we remain unconvinced that this is what has been going on in the Land of the Brave and this must change.

When will we learn to evaluate all of our resources in terms of what is best for this country not just now, but 10, 20 and even 50 years from now? The Chinese planners are not thinking about tomorrow, but decades in advance about the raw materials their development plans will require.

While the Rössing share sale is not yet ‘approved’ by the Namibian Competition Commission, we are unmoved by this footnote.

That approval will occur with full speed as this is a major league international business deal and N$1.5 billion is on the line. Government will herd its regulator into line as it wants to protect the 500 or so jobs presumably at stake (again, short-term thinking) should the mine shut down.

We recall the countless reports about Chinese business entities in construction, retail sales and other areas that have often shown contempt for Namibian labour laws while the government’s enforcement capabilities in this regard have been impotent.

This new uranium mine sale will open the door for even more Chinese executives and mining industry workers to flood into Namibia, in order to protect their investment and run their mining of our uranium.

Employment of Namibians is not their priority; production and profits are. This is one of the costs of selling your national assets to foreign entities.

Long-term projections and future market analysis are not easy and we do not make light of this fact. It requires a deeper knowledge about the economic asset in question, understanding of not only the current market, but the history and projections of that market and potential technical advancements.

We understand that the depressed price of uranium worldwide has forced the Rössing sale in the first place. The roller coaster ride of world commodity prices affects all raw material producers; Namibia is no different.

If this recession produces no other silver lining, we hope that lessons are learned about the need for deep analytical thinking and planning before natural resources are sold off for short-term gains.

Our non-reading society and decision-makers must learn to review reports, analyse data and make the best decision for tomorrow as a priority.

We need to be certain this level of deep thinking is underway at the highest levels before Namibian assets continue to be handed out like candy at Christmas.

Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) is not the silver bullet to solve Namibia’s employment and recessionary woes. It has a major downside that could stifle wealth creation and indeed, undercut national sovereignty.

When will this government wake up and understand that being able to provide for ourselves is the key to breaking the cycle of poverty and creating wealth in this country?

“Foreign direct investment is an investment in the form of a controlling ownership in a business in one country by an entity based in another country.” In other words, a foreign business or individual invests money and controls an entity based in Namibia.

If you take someone’s money, then you follow their directives and priorities. Foreign entities investing money can exert control that supersedes Namibian laws and customs.

We’ve seen it before with waivers of taxes, export/import regulations, foreign exchange limitations, environmental laws, labour laws, visa regulations and other ‘benefits’ that have been granted to a range of foreign entities operating in Namibia over the years, in exchange for their investment in our economy.

There are too many uninformed leaders in our government who make speeches calling for more FDI without a single notion of what it actually means for Namibia. This is dangerous.

No businessperson from a foreign country puts their cash into Namibia just because they like us. The only thing they want is a high return on their investment, as fast as possible with low risk. The needs and priorities of the Namibian people are mostly irrelevant to them.

We do not oppose FDI in and of itself – true investors are welcome; we oppose our government’s fervent commitment to it as if it is the manna from heaven that will salvage our economy, employ our youth, inject money into public spending and government infrastructure programmes, and feed and educate our people. We must be realistic about what FDI is, and most importantly, what it is not.

FDI is not a donor gift or development assistance or low interest loan. Foreign entities investing their money in Namibia want to take profits and products out, that is why they put their money in. They are not interested in building anything that stays in Namibia which does not promote their margins.

Contrary to the administration’s claims that Namibia is in the driver’s seat with donor assistance from the Chinese (or any other country), the truth is that those with beggar bowls have no say in the conditions of the donation.

This administration has overseen Namibia’s relegation to needy international finance beggar status and that must be admitted, not as an accusation, but as a building block to effective solutions going forward. Identifying the problem is the first step towards solving it.

Take our agriculture sector for example. A country that can feed itself is a viable nation. If Namibia applies its limited resources to growing food so our people have enough to eat and exports the excess, then we are strong.

If our agricultural products that have worldwide markets are the focus of the limited government funds still available, then we can grow. But, if we wait for FDI to be able to implement national food security or increase agricultural exports, we are weak. It is just that simple.

Giving farmland, for example, to Chinese so they can raise cattle locally to export to their own country is not building wealth in Namibia.

The country’s ravished economy does not get a boost from this kind of FDI. It is not a total agricultural development programme that could be providing food for all of our people.

This country still imports a large portion of what it eats; correcting this reality should be attacked with vehemence rather than pushing for long-term FDI for all sectors.

Why can’t the imprisoned value of meat north of the red line be unlocked and those animals be sold to feed lots for the required time.

The animals could be slaughtered and appropriate meat products sold throughout all areas above the red line, leaving other cuts and products to be processed according to health requirements and sold at locations around Namibia.

This meat cannot be exported, but it can be used in government facilities across the nation including prisons, schools, army bases and Food Banks.

Food imports can be decreased when local food replaces foreign grown products. Why hasn’t government cut the amount of meat being imported by consistently pushing Namibia towards meat self-sufficiency?

Why not invest state and local funds into the Green Schemes to grow food to augment the insufficient Old Age Pension with (for example) 20 kgs of meat each month.

These are quite do-able food security ideas that can be promoted with more vigour. Why spend so much effort and place such emphasis on seeking FDI for the agricultural sector when it is, in effect, a continuous “Black Friday” sale on Namibia’s assets.

We believe it is more important to empower the country by providing food security first, before selling off land to Chinese, Russians, South Africans, Germans or anyone else who offers power brokers a little ‘candy’ for their individual pockets and very little for the economy as a whole.

The struggle for independence in Namibia was not so that our people could work as cattle minders, maids and laundresses in the businesses of foreign investors. While these jobs are honourable and increased employment opportunities are beneficial for Namibia, they are not the only way our people can generate wealth.

Being self-employed, owning one’s own productive farm or business enterprise or managing one’s own investments/stocks/bonds wisely are ways to generate healthy returns without working for someone else as an employee.

We must stop telling the world that Namibia is only interested in growing opportunities that keep our people as employees.

Indeed, foreign investment in some sectors (for example mining or tourism) can lead to lucrative deals if each contract is done with no illusions and mutual benefits included.

This country does not need FDI like Ramatex where the country’s laws are waived and benefits for the investment are offered at such discounts as to make that foreign investor more valuable than the Namibian people. We note how that ended in spite of all the ‘give-aways’.

There is no doubt that foreign investors can bring in skills and technology that may not be readily available otherwise. FDI deals should include access for locally produced Namibian products to be exported to the markets of the foreign countries concerned. For these aspects, FDI can have benefits if the deal is negotiated from a position of strength, which is not the case for Namibia right now.

FDI can be one of many weapons for economic development, but it is a tricky double-edged sword that must be used with extreme caution.

Recent defensive comments by President Hage Geingob proclaiming the capacity of the Namibian government reveal much.

We take note of the president’s righteous indignation when he told the former president of the German Parliament that he “should not underestimate the intellect of the Namibian government”.

We reminded ourselves that the president grew annoyed with the Chinese Ambassador to Namibia last August when he told him, “You should not tell us what we should do. We are not puppets”.

When you need to remind people that you should be taken seriously, then that begs the question of why that subject comes up at all. If you warn someone not to take you for a fool, is it because you believe it is plausible that they think you are one?

In making this observation, we are not unmindful that racism in international interactions involving developing nations is real.

We know that developed countries (in this, we include China and India) often pretend they don’t feel superior, when their actions tell another story.

We know that countries giving development assistance to Namibia may speak the language of being ‘partners’, when in fact, there is a donor/beggar relationship hidden behind the plastic smiles and stony handshakes.

That said, we also know that countries working with Namibia read, listen and witness how we handle our affairs. They see the blatant contradictions, uninformed general statements, poorly written speeches and documents, lack of statistics, poor educational levels, repeated mistakes in the economy, the waste, corruption, poor planning and other tell-tale signs of lower capacity and they react to this.

We earn disrespect when we implement farm ‘purchase’ deals with Russian billionaires, while public outrage over land availability for locals, has reached crisis levels that could eventually cause instability. This does not offer a favourable image.

Statements coming from Land Reform Minister, Utoni Nujoma, are far from informed, well-researched and analytical. Other political leaders and pundits have questioned his capacity. But, when he speaks, he is heard.

With the internet and an alert media, his comments are recorded and evaluated instantaneously. Often, his banal utterings are found wanting. What does that say about the long-time, perpetual minister and the president that appointed him and keeps him in place?

We have governors and other officials that can barely read prepared speeches and statements. Written official documents, reports and statements often have poor grammar, bad English, wrong word usage, and at times, pages are out of order and ideas are poorly laid out and unclear.

At times, such uncoordinated, ill-prepared speeches are made in front of the diplomatic corps or distributed to the world media and the Namibian public. This is certainly not the image of a quick-thinking, well-read, learned leadership in the Land of the Brave.

We have a president that made much fanfare when he released the amount of his personal wealth when he first came to office. This was heralded around the globe as an African president who will meet the western definition of transparency.

That same president, who happily released his individual net worth, has difficulties releasing a complete and un-doctored list of who was awarded resettlement farms since 1991.

Either the government is not sincere about being transparent, or it doesn’t comprehend all of what transparency entails. Which is it?

With all of Geingob’s talk abroad about lifestyle audits that were ongoing in Namibia (but won’t ever happen) or streets already named after great South African leaders (when it hadn’t yet happened), an image of official prevarication is being created.

There have been many laws passed that are rescinded or ignored in short order either because they contradict other existing laws (no one checked before passage) or they are completely unworkable (no one does impact analyses) or there is no budget for implementation (no one costed the programme.)

Development partner countries working with Namibia complain about poor monitoring and evaluation of projects they have been asked to fund. These donor governments complain that ministry officials cannot provide the data needed to help programmes conform to mutually-agreed reporting mechanisms.

Tens of millions are in the offing and normal paper work cannot be completed. This doesn’t speak well of efficiency and capacity in the Namibian government.

Armies of foreign consultants have been needed now and in years gone by just to get major programmes and legislative initiatives completed. Does government think this reliance on outside expertise goes unnoticed?

The number of times the Namibian government has been sued for unilaterally cancelling signed contracts is staggering. How often is it reported that the lawmakers who cheered a deal, end up claiming to not have known about an obviously negative repercussion of the contract. Did they even read the paperwork?

One need only sit and observe a week of Parliamentary sessions to get a good representation of our lackadaisical legislative debates (from those awake and not on social media) expressed in sometimes unintelligible statements full of unproven facts, rumours, nonsensical conclusions and lots of emotion, all delivered from people who think they are speaking with intelligence.

The world must laugh when they see this, because certainly many in the Namibian public do. It is not inspiring.

We recall rolling stock bought by TransNamib that doesn’t fit the size of Namibian railway tracks. There is an oil storage unit at the coast ballooning in cost due to an approved contract that didn’t consider potential changes in the exchange rate that would unfavourably affect the bottom-line that included hard currency purchases.

We still look at NEEEF that was backed by bold statements from government leaders demanding 25 percent ownership by black Namibians only to withdraw the point with a weak whimper when the world threatened repercussions.

When our president goes to the USA for expensive extra time after the UN General Assembly and makes speeches at universities and radio stations because he has not been invited to meet with power players in the US government, what does that say about how seriously Namibia is taken?

Many Namibian Ambassadors abroad do not meet with foreign ministers when they have major concerns; they are shunted to lower ranked, young “Africa desk” officers. This shows a certain level of disrespect for Namibia and yet, we accept it with little complaint.

At a UN luncheon for African leaders open to the world media, President Donald Trump referred to the Land of the Brave as “Nambia” and our president laughed it off expressing contentment that at least our country was mentioned. We do not recall a report of an apology given by the USA for the snub.

Do indicators such as these show respect for Namibia’s wide-ranging intelligence, international relevance and astuteness? We think not.

You reap what you sow when you lay the ground work for your image with continual miscues, poor/disinterested performances, little/no research, contradictory actions, and mixed messages.

You cannot then, bristle with indignation when you are underestimated or treated as a puppet when your official public actions merit it.

The 12 years of deprivation suffered by Nekulilo Shoombe and her children while she was not served by the Government Institutions Pension Fund (GIPF) after the death of her husband, is yet another national disgrace.

Once again, a government institution is showing how utterly detached it is from the everyday needs of the people.

This woman, living in abject poverty, should have been contacted long ago by GIPF who knew (or should have known) she was a beneficiary of one of their deceased clients. Instead, she was forced to endure, never understanding that she was owed money by GIPF.

Each civil servant upon taking up employment fills out their GIPF beneficiary form. Why keep a list of beneficiaries at all if it is not the instrument with which a client makes their inheritance wishes known?

The fact that the deceased husband had submitted a list of beneficiaries means that much of the onus for the disbursement of that man’s money is on GIPF, not only on the heirs.

There are always people named as heirs who do not know their status and therefore cannot know to inquire about a possible inheritance.

Doesn’t the law require insurance institutions to undertake reasonable due diligence in tracking down listed heirs?

It is disingenuous for GIPF to present their specious argument defending their actions saying that ‘she only came in last week’ or ‘all the documents weren’t submitted’ (presuming the heirs even knew documents were outstanding).

They felt they had a green light to usurp inheritance funds, earn interest for themselves using other people’s money, and commit the sin of omission in the process.

GIPF must be made to show how they try to contact heirs of unclaimed money via radio broadcasts in various languages, road shows, announcements at local events, searches of Home Affairs records, Nampost PO Boxes and tax rolls, access to church announcements, contacts to regional councillors and traditional leaders and other mechanisms.

Apparently, these methods of finding the listed beneficiaries of Uushona Isak Shigwedha (Shoombe’s common law husband) were not undertaken by GIPF and a woman and her family languished as a result.

Over 12 years, children (who are now uneducated adults) had to leave school for lack of money. How can they recapture those years of educational opportunity needlessly lost?

A GIPF client’s wishes were ignored by the very institution he trusted to handle their end of the bargain after his death. GIPF did not keep the faith.

To rub further salt into Meme Shoombe’s 12-year gaping wound of penury, all papers are now submitted and yet, she must still wait for justice. The bureaucracy says that an additional 12 months is needed before a pay-out can occur.

We demand that GIPF move off its bureaucratic haunches and serve the wishes of its decreased member. Twelve years of waiting is long enough. Waive part of the rules and disburse at least some immediate amount from the inheritance so restorative justice can begin.

We note that if rich, powerful and connected people need a rule tweaked in order to obtain government services, such things occur with ease.

Meme Shoombe doesn’t have family or friends who work at GIPF. She is not white, a ruling party cadre, or ‘connected’ to any government official.

She is a marginalized, black woman; everyone has their foot on her head, grinding her down or they simply ignore her existence. What sort of Namibian House makes no room for a widow and her children?

When government officials and people of power and money are serving themselves, they move with lightning speed to make sure all that they need is made available. But, when it comes to serving the regular people, all the written rules are unbreakable and the bureaucrats move like snails.

Imagine that when our great heroes die, the arrangements for state funerals are made in a flash. Waiting times for documents, permissions or other rules that are applicable to all, are brushed aside in a wink of an eye. Government moves with haste to do the things that it prioritizes; all else must stand in line only to be forgotten.

When connected citizens and officials take trips and a passport is discovered to be expiring, a new one is produced not in the 10 working days the rest of us are told to wait, but the very next day.

If the ID card of the ‘right’ person is lost, a new one comes within a day of submission of the correct documents, everyone else must check back in a month.

When President Pohamba left office, construction of his new residence and office were nearly completed. The huge amount of paperwork necessary to move civil service staff to different budgets was done in days, not months. Cars, drivers and security personnel were made available instantly, not 12 months after Pohamba’s retirement papers were filed.

We suspect that the widows of our honoured heroes who have died are not waiting 12 months to receive benefits from GIPF or the government that they are entitled to.

Should such a requirement be mentioned by any official, we are quite certain that a well-placed phone call would sweep such flimsy regulations aside in an instant.

Should a GIPF staff member die, certainly, their beneficiaries will be contacted with immediate effect. They are connected and on the inside. Meme Shoombe had no such access to information. GIPF must answer for that imbalance – all of its clients must be handled equally.

A separate word must be said about the selfish, cruel, outdated, illegal cultural practices of disinheriting widows and children that also plagued Meme Shoombe.

This lady’s destitute state also speaks negatively to traditional practices that continue to toss women and children into the streets after someone dies.

This kind of bullying, intimidation and self-serving beliefs of the relatives of the deceased must no longer be tolerated.

GIPF had a job to do in this case and they did not do it. In our view, they owe damages for this dreadfully painful lapse. Imagine that the Shoombe / Shigwedha children, who could not finish school because there was no money, had been able to do so with funds from their GIPF inheritance. What would their lives be like now?

GIPF must be made to keep the faith – we wonder how many other heirs are suffering needlessly while their benefits are being ignored.